Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence. I refer the minister to his refusal to rule out buying Japanese submarines for Australia's future submarine project. Is the minister aware of evidence given to a Senate committee last night by retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, the former head of the submarine capability team, who compared the Japanese Soryu submarine to the Collins, saying, 'It's slower and it doesn't go as far, and that's perfectly reasonable for the Japanese situation, but it would be untenable for Australia's situation'? Minister, is Rear Admiral Briggs correct?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. We welcome the inquiry that is being run by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee into the future of Australian shipbuilding and the robust discussions—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wrong one.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The economics committee, rather, and what occurred around the discussions relating to the future submarine program. I confirm that no decision has been taken by the government regarding this important capability. I point out that the former Labor government promised in 2007 that first-pass approval for 12 submarines would happen in 2011. Guess what? Nothing happened. In 2012, Prime Minister Gillard promised first pass in 2013-14. Guess what? Nothing happened. Labor promised in May of 2012 that a decision would be made on design and test facilities, including—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock. Senator Moore, you have a point of order?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question was specifically about comments made by Rear Admiral Briggs. 'Is Rear Admiral Briggs correct?' was the only question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Moore, there were two questions. The first question was 'Is the minister aware?' and the second part was, 'Is Rear Admiral Briggs correct?' The minister is halfway through his answer and the minister is aware of the question. Minister, you have the call.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor promised they would do a whole lot of things: land-based test sites, new systems, combat systems and torpedo sensors. They did nothing. Last night we had Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, Chief of Navy; Vice Admiral Peter Jones, head of capability group; Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, our most senior submariner; Warren King—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Again, it concerns direct relevance. The minister has said that he is aware of the committee, but the specific question leading out of that was about evidence given by Rear Admiral Peter Briggs. We have not even got to him yet.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is the only person he has not mentioned—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Conroy. I remind the minister of the question. He has 34 seconds left in which to answer the question.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These officers of the department are senior, trusted, experienced members of the military who have insights into the current state of the submarine project. They have a combined total of 150 years of deep military knowledge, in the naval capability sense, and have current knowledge of the submarine program.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Again, it concerns direct relevance. The minister has had his attention drawn to the question. There are now only six seconds remaining and we still have not got onto the core question about Rear Admiral Peter Briggs.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I do remind you of the question. You have six seconds left to answer your question.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These naval officers have given testimony in contradiction— (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to comments today by his Senate colleague David Fawcett, who told this chamber:

Australia needs a submarine that is fit for purpose, and it needs the sovereign ability to be able to maintain it. And, contrary to many critics, the most cost-effective way to do that is most likely to do it here.

Is Senator Fawcett correct?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having told you who I look to for advice—that is, naval officers with 150 years of combined knowledge and experience—can I tell you that they will continue to be my trusted advisers looking at what is Australia's most complex defence capability acquisition program—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Again, it concerns direct relevance. This time we have moved away from the committee and we are now on a particular question about comments made by Senator Fawcett. I would like you to draw the minister's attention to that question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is highlighting his answer. I remind the minster that he as 32 seconds left to answer the question.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said yesterday, because of the complete lack of capacity by the Labor Party to actually do anything to do with submarines—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald and Senator Conroy. Senator Wong, you have the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. That point concerns direct relevance. This minister has flouted the standing orders over and over again. It is time for you to return him to the question. He was specifically asked one question: is Senator Fawcett correct? I ask you, Mr President, to return him to the question. He ought to be directly relevant to that question.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to comment on the point of order. Clearly the Labor Party have run out of questions, so I am going to help them by giving a long, irrelevant speech on this point of order.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, that is no point of order. Minister, you have 20 seconds left in which to answer the questions. I remind you of the specific nature of the question.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are very many opinions that are available to the Australian government from people who have a great deal of experience in this space. The most important consideration will always be the best capability for the navy, and we will listen to those officers. (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why is the minister so determined to break his promise to build Australia's new submarines in Adelaide that he is not only ignoring submarine experts but he is also ignoring the only voice of reason in the Liberal party room?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the senator wants to hold hearings with government officials that go on for hours, and then just ignore everything they have ever said to him. The Chief of Navy, the head of the Capability Group, the Chief Submariner and the head of the DMO all told you last night—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A number of officials told you last night that the government is confronted with a capability gap caused by you, because you did nothing for five years. There is no contract, no commitment and no obligation. From the Labor Party there is a 'round number before 1' on submarines. It is as simple as that. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cameron and Senator Macdonald.